Class F $3 
Book .%?£> 



GENERAL CUSTER 



3-5 4-/4 



/ 



AT 



THE BATTLE 



OP 



THE LITTLE BIG HORN 



JUNE 25, 1876 




OF COD 



1898 



NEW- YORK 
PRINTED, NOT PUBLISHED 

1897 




2226 



New Yoke, 342 West 14th Street, 
June 21, 1897. 



Dear Sie : 

I have been repeatedly requested to answer in detail 
the article of Colonel R. P. Hughes which appeared in 
the "Journal of the Military Service Institution," 
January, 1896, in which General Custer is accused 
of disobeying orders at the battle of the Little Big 
Horn, where he lost his life. 

Believing that such a reply would prolong an un- 
profitable and an inconclusive discussion of many 
matters which are not pertinent to the one central 
question, I deem it best to submit a portion of a letter 
written me by an officer who held the closest personal 
and official relations with General Custer during the 
Civil War. 

After indorsing strongly the opinion of a distin- 
guished officer that "the key-note of the magazine 
article was lacking in the fact that no order was pro- 
duced as evidence to sustain his charge," he further 
adds: "It makes no difference what General Custer's 
relations were with the individuals mentioned in the 
article. These and other statements brought forward 
as arguments have nothing to do with the one question 
at issue. Did General Custer disobey General Terry's 
orders ? If he did, where is and what was the order he 
disobeyed! It has not been produced. Its existence 
has never been shown. General Terry never affirmed 



it. His papers have never shown any reference to it. 
The only known order in the case is General Terry's 
well-known written order of June 22, 1876. He was 
sending against an enemy of unknown numbers and in 
an uncertain location a column of troops which for a 
time must be entirely self-sufficient and liable to. come 
in hostile contact before support could be had. Gen- 
eral Terry himself was to be out of reach for instruc- 
tions in any emergency. He was sending in command 
an officer of the very highest distinction for trained 
ability, professional experience, practised judgment, 
personal coolness and bravery, and every soldierly 
quality, to whom, after ample discussion and mutual 
conference, he gives, as to one possessing his entire 
confidence, the directions necessary to the guidance of 
such an one commanding a column which General 
Terry must have presumed sufficient for whatever he 
expected it to meet in any considered contingency. 
That was the order of June 22, 1876. It developed 
General Terry's plan, and was the official record of his 
purpose for the guidance of his subordinate, whose 
responsibility was grounded therein and measured 
thereby. The reputations of both men were concerned 
in the matter. General Terry was not only an officer of 
high rank and distinguished for ability and long ser- 
vice, but he was also a trained man of affairs, and he 
knew what was necessary for his own protection in so 
important a movement, and for his subordinate's pro- 
tection ' guidance. 

" It is impossible that there should have been an order 
contravening this one in any part, or in any way modi- 
fying it, without its leaving a clear record. Any sug- 



gestion to the contrary is a distinct discredit to "both 
the capacity, training, experience, and personal char- 
acter of General Terry. His order of June 22, 1876, 
directs General Custer to take his regiment and pursue 
the Indians up the Rosebud. Then he says : 4 It is, of 
course, impossible to give you any definite instructions 
in regard to this movement, and were it not impossible 
to do so, the department commander places too much 
confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to 
impose upon you precise orders which might hamper 
your action when nearly in contact with the enemy. 
He will, however, indicate to you his 'own views of 
what your action should be, and he desires that you 
should conform to them unless you shall see sufficient 
reasons for departing from them.' 

" Then follow his views and plans, the execution of 
which, as far as they may be possible of execution and 
subject to chances of all war, he commits to a man in 
whose 'zeal, energy, and ability' he places too much 
confidence 4 to wish to impose upon him precise orders 
which might hamper his action when nearly in contact 
with the enemy.' These were Custer's orders up to 
the moment of his coming 'nearly in contact with. the 
enemy.' When did he disobey them ? When he came 
nearly in such contact all things were at his discretion, 
and unless he failed to play the soldier and the man at 
that moment there is no longer a question of disobe- 
dience of orders." 

Trusting that this letter will be read by the fair- 
minded in the spirit with which it is written, 
I am very truly yours, 

Elizabeth B. Custek. 



"7 



